Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:48:58 +0000 From: Craig Butler <craig001@lerwick.hopto.org> To: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> Subject: Re: Loadbalance outgoing traffic over two cable modems in same network Message-ID: <4B30B22A.1010704@lerwick.hopto.org> In-Reply-To: <200912211546.05151.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <200912201903.34873.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <4B2FC4CB.2040409@gmx.com> <200912211546.05151.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22/12/2009 00:46, Mel Flynn wrote: > On Monday 21 December 2009 09:56:11 Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > >> On 12/21/2009 6:03 AM, Mel Flynn wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've looked over http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html but this >>> assumes two different gateways for the two interfaces. >>> I'm faced with two cable modems from the same ISP, with the same gateway. >>> I can't lagg(4) the interfaces, since specific IP's are bound to specific >>> modems. >>> >> This can probably be fixed from the ISP side. It should probably be some >> antispoofing rule that drops the packets you are sending via the "wrong" >> interface. You could try communicating the problem to the ISP and hope for >> the best... >> > I'd rather not go that route. However, I might ask the ISP to move swap two > IP's, so that I have two consecutive IPs on two modems and can use /31 > notation for the pool. Source hash should then work better. > > >>> So I'm wondering if using stick-address with a round-robin nat pool is >>> really sufficient to do load balancing of outgoing traffic and not get >>> into session problems with various protocols. Has anybody had similar >>> experiences? >>> >> I have no experience on this, but theoretically a state can expire while >> the upper layers are still active... so, I *think* you may have >> problems... Of course, you could increase the lifetime of states >> > True, I'm mostly worried about DNS queries and other UDP protocols. TCP should > theoretically be fine. > Thanks for your feedback. > Would ECMP (aka RADIX_MPATH) not be suitable for your requirements ?? 2 default routes, one to each of the modems IP's ... that should start bunting traffic down both pipes. Works for me here... ================================================= Equal cost multipath routing Status: Committed to 8-CURRENT Will appear in 8.0: sure Authors: Qing Li Web: commit message ECMP routing allows for multiple routes to be handled by the kernel, including default routes. It potentially offers substantial increases in bandwidth by load-balancing traffic over multiple paths. ================================================= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-cost_multi-path_routing http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2008-April/089956.html /Craig B
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B30B22A.1010704>